Philosophy and Language of Money - Book Report/Review Example

Philosophy and Language of Money Introduction Money plays an indispensable role in the day to day life of man. It is one of those undeniable realities of human life which lend a certain rhythm and charm to life. Money helps us build our own perception of the world and its people, and locate our own distinct identity and status in this world. However, if we take a closer look, money is also a source of mystery and paradox in our lives. It is a known fact that the lack of money is a source of endless problems in one’s life. But the paradox is that even when we possess money, the problems persist, or rather multiply in terms of both variety and intensity. Perhaps the most powerful enigma associated with money is that it has the power to make its owner its master as well as its slave. Most of us believe that we are in control of the money owned. This however is only an illusion. The striking truth is that we all are under the subtle and invasive control of money which not only molds our outlook in life but also determines its fate. Hence the amount of power we can exercise over our money depends entirely on our understanding of the extent of power our money exercises on us. This article looks forward to explore the philosophical significance of money as a widely occurring social phenomenon. My approach to understanding the value of money as a substance would be through an in depth analysis of its importance as a medium of exchange. Simultaneously I would also attempt to examine the social value of money by analyzing the meaning of money as a purpose of exchange. The focus will be on analyzing the works of three noted economists and philosophers who have adopted a similar stance in their writings- Simmel, Derrida and Klossowski. Economics, as we know it today, is a purely theoretical stream which is guided by policies and is meant to focus its attention on solving practical problems of the society. But my essay would add value to the already existing literature on economic research by viewing the arena of economic research from a purely philosophical perspective. ‘The Philosophy of Money’ by Georg Simmel “The Philosophy of Money” is a remarkable classic by the author Georg Simmel. This work however did not receive as much applause and appreciation as the rest of his sociological work. One of the main reasons behind this is the ambiguity in the interpretation of the title of the work. Most of the readers assume it to be a staunchly metaphysical work. Not only the readers, but many of his early interpreters and translators too were of a similar view. It is true that this book showcases a lot many philosophical ideas of the author. But the crux of the book rests in the tenets of cultural sociology that it lends to our understanding of the economic affairs from a wider social perspective. Simmel, in this book, suggests that economic transaction is a phenomenon that can be best viewed as a type of social interaction. When the society escalated from the traditional barter system to the modern monetary exchange, there had been significant parallel changes in the pattern of social interactions between the parties involved too. The use of money brings with it more precision and uniformity in the transactions. It is neutral in nature and allows exact measurement of equal quantities. Such traits do not feature in the barter system where the goods that are exchanged are subject to manipulation and differential measurement. The use of money thus infuses rationality in the various calculations that are part of our day to day lives. It thus helps in reinforcing the element of rationality which is an indispensable element of the modern and civilized society. In today’s society, money has been given the status of the prime connecting link between persons. It has thus led to the creation of impersonal relations which are transactional in nature and are meant for some definite purpose. Such a trend has overpowered the essence of personal bonding that is firmly rooted in strong feelings and concern for each other. As a result the delicate elements of our social life, such as aesthetic ties and kinship which have always been a part of qualitative evaluation, are now being subject to quantitative measurement and being brought under the knife of abstract calculations. With the increasing use of money, it is now plausible to restrict any given social exchange to solely the immediate purpose of that transaction. It enables one to exercise greater personal freedom and creates differentiation amongst one’s social relationships. The rising use of money has led to the tendency of people to engage in well-thought and deliberate associations aimed at the fulfilment of pre-determined rational purposes, rather than to get involved in any sort of natural bonding. The desire for money is so overwhelming and overpowering that it is potent enough to destroy the ties based on family, friendship or loyalty. Money has outgrown its traditional status of being simply a means of exchange and a measure of value. It is no longer confined merely to the conventional functions, which are mainly economic or financial in nature, but has gone much beyond that to stand up as a symbol of the modern age’s ideas of objectivity, measurability and rationality. The qualitative distinctions between objects as well as between persons can be levelled by the power of money. Money indicates power and supremacy. While the world view during the olden days regarded feelings, emotions and imagination as the prime qualities of man, the modern world surprisingly accords immense value to scheming and thoughts. In the second chapter of the book, Simmel talks about the value of money as a substance. In the initial phases, when transactions were based on the system of barter, money was made up of some or the other valuable items, like gold or tusk or cloth, the worth of all of which could be physically measured. But gradually with time, money was elevated from its overtly concrete form to an ideal form which was made up of a non-valuable material like paper. Money thus gained the status of a symbol for value, rather than being an object of value itself. It grew to be used as a standardized measure and medium of transactions. Monetary transactions became a widely accepted practice of exchange amongst people. Money began to be used as a standardized and quantitative representation of value. Though the concept originated in the developed countries, this notion eventually was agreed upon and accepted by the entire world. This work by Simmel also showcases certain paradoxes in relation to the concept of money. For instance, he states that according to the accepted notion money is regarded purely as a symbol. However, it is not as vague or insignificant as the other common symbols we use in our daily lives. Another paradox is that though money is considered to be having a relationship with the goods and commodities it can purchase, such a relationship may not always be an exact correlation. The relationship between a certain amount of money and the commodities that can be purchased in exchange, for it bears a proportional nature. The expenditure incurred on any one product must be evaluated by taking into account the total expenses that need to be incurred upon all the related and complementary products. The total amount of money involved in a transaction is thus directly proportional to the value of all the commodities that are involved in it. Hence, as per Simmel’s theory, money constantly changes its form from a substance to its function. As he puts it: “At the present time, by comparison, money is no longer valuable because its substance is regarded as a necessity, an indispensable value. No European today regards a coin as valuable because it can be changed into a piece of jewelry.” (Simmel, 2004, p. 141). While the second chapter talks about the value of money as a material substance, the fifth chapter of the same book talks about the monetary equivalence of personal values. The concept of equating money with personal virtues and vices emerged as the society began to accept the practice of compensation of one’s crimes through payment of money. Simmel has revealed in this chapter: “In early Anglo-Saxon England a wergild—the atonement of murder by money payment, a manbote—was even attached to killing the king; a law set it at 2,700 shillings.” (Simmel, 2004, p. 357) Though the quantities of money required to pay for a crime differed with the magnitude or severity of the crime, the basic fact remained that money is a substance that can pay for any kind of crime. Though the basic intent behind such a practice was “the protection of society and the obligation to indemnify for the damage done to society or the victim”, such a popular belief in the society eventually led to the elimination of the differences between the repercussions of the crimes. (Simmel, 2004, p. 365) It also made the society lend a deaf ear to even the most severe consequences like loss of life or property of the persons involved. An analogous stream of thought lies behind the practice of dowry in marriages and the idea of bride price or the purchase of women by men for marriage. The latter is even characterized by a differentiation in terms of the amount of money paid because different women are sold off at different prices. Another form of social transaction where money is used to weigh one’s moral values is bribery. In bribery money is offered as a tangible measure of a person’s personal values and ethics. Simmel opines: “…bribery—that is the purchase of office or assurances—is judged to be so much more contemptible if it is carried out for small amounts. Thus, bribery is in fact interpreted as the purchase of a person according to whether he is ‘unpurchaseable’, expensive or cheap.” (Simmel, 2004, p. 387) A very important aspect that Simmel discusses in this chapter with respect to money is obligation. He says that although the obligation of a person to objects and his obligations to people both involve a certain level of responsibility, the two types are marked by a subtle distinction in terms of their exact nature. But one’s obligation to money is something that is drastically different from his obligation to both people and objects. Unlike all other things, money grants us a sort of unrestricted freedom in terms of our life, work, relationships and exchanges. In exchange for all such liberties, money does not demand anything in return or set any boundaries or constraints. Such kind of freedom is, in a way, negative in nature. Another flaw in the idea of money as an equivalent of personal values is that money can be used to quantify only physical labor by measuring the time spent in any activity. Unfortunately, it does not prove as effective in the case of evaluating or compensating for intellectual labor. The premises discussed above are few of the many themes elaborated upon by Simmel in his book “The Philosophy of Money”. Though most of the topics discussed in this book have already been taken up in some of his previous works, this book is remarkable in the sense that it offers a much wider and comprehensive treatment of all these themes. This is the prime reason why this book is a must-read for anyone who wishes to understand Simmel’s analysis of culture and his cultural philosophy and criticism. ‘Giving Time I: Counterfeit Money’ by Jacques Derrida  “Given Time I: Counterfeit Money” is a text by Jacques Derrida which revolves around an unfathomable paradox regarding the concept of gift. Through his analysis of the paradox involved, Derrida seems to have succeeded in unravelling the most fundamental truth about the meaning of a gift. Though to us apparently a gift received does not seem be carrying any liability with it, the author says that the receipt of a gift automatically entraps a person in the vicious cycle of debt and repayment. The same predicament has been expressed in the initial segment of his work where the author wonders whether giving is really possible. He ponders over the question whether at all it is possible to give something to someone without the ensuing involvement into the circle of exchange which eventually transforms a gift into a debt that needs to be repaid. This work by Derrida is inspired by his reading of numerous texts by authors preceding him such as ‘Time and Being’ by Heidegger, ‘The Gift’ by Mauss and a few essays by Levi-Strauss and Benveniste. Though all of these authors have had a considerable impact on Derrida’s flow of thoughts, one particular short text ‘Counterfeit Money’ by Baudelaire is the chief source from where Derrida has derived his views and his analysis of the concept of a gift. The latter half of his book is solely converged upon his reading of Baudelaire’s tale. It elaborately deals with the essential connection between the ideas of gift and forgiveness, and the movement of dissemination. This is a concept on which Derrida had been working for several years before he finally wrote Given Time I: Counterfeit Money. Owing to the wonderful interpretation and analysis of Baudelaire’s ideas, this work is an indispensable reading not only for a reader of Baudelaire but also for any student of literary theory. In the opening chapter of his book itself, Derrida exposes the element of impossibility associated with the phenomenon of gift. This inherent paradox hidden in the so called “gift event” is touched upon by the author right from the initial pages of his book. He enumerates the points of contrast between a gift and the general structure of an economy: “What is economy? ...economy no doubt includes the values of law (nomos) and of home (oikos, home, property, the hearth, the fire indoors). Nomos does not only signify the law in general, but also the law of distribution (nemein)…As soon as there is law, there is partition: as soon as there is nomy, there is economy.” (Derrida, 1992, p. 6). Economy, therefore, is the legal framework that specifies who owes what to whom by establishing debts in order to create a divide amongst people. To be more specific, the economy lays down the rules and regulations that determine the way in which property is divided and distributed in the society. Since gift is a form of property it is bound to bear some kind of relation with the economy. Hence as per Derrida’s notion, the gift must be seen in relation to the economy. But again, he contradicts himself by saying: “But is not the gift, if there is any, also that which interrupts economy? That which opens the circle so as to defy reciprocity or symmetry, the common measure, and so as to turn aside the return in view of the no-return?” (Derrida, 1992, p. 7). Derrida asserts that a gift is an element that comes into conflict with the idea of economic obligations. It is given to someone without any expectation of getting anything in return. There is a kind of asymmetry in the concept of gifting when viewed from an economic point of view. Giving a gift involves an economic loss, but it does not levy a debt on the recipient of the gift. It does not lead to the creation of a circle of reciprocity in terms of obligations between the giver and the recipient. The fact that a gift is always deliberate, uncalled-for and free makes it an “aneconomic” entity. Derrida states: “…if the figure of the circle is essential to economics, the gift must remain aneconomic.” (Derrida, 1992, p. 7). Though Derrida’s description makes the gift event sound like a very simple concept, it is undeniable that the concept is a very complex one. More than one criterion need to be kept in mind while describing or defining a gift. The focus of a gift must always be the recipient and not the giver. A gift cannot be considered as a gift at all if it is given with a specific intent such as seeking favour of the recipient, or exalting the status of the giver, or bribing the recipient. When a celebrity gets involved in charitable activities and later showcases the same for the sake of gaining publicity and popularity, his sincerity is put at stake. A gift must be given freely such that no debt is levied upon the recipient of the gift. Similarly a gift should not be given with the intention of earning credit for the giver. Demanding reimbursement for a gift is something that comes into conflict with the basic definition of a gift. Hence Derrida, in his study, upholds the idea that a gift cannot be given with the intention of being repaid or of making a profit. The ‘aneconomic’ nature of the gift, according to Derrida, is what makes it ‘aporetic’ or the impossible. As he says: “Not impossible, but the impossible. The very figure of the impossible.” (Derrida, 1992, p. 7). Here, he does not mean to indicate the conventional idea that impossible is the opposite of possible. Nor does he, by any means, intend to say that the gift is never probable to happen. Rather he aims to emphasize the meaning of ‘im-possible’ as something that lies outside or beyond the periphery of the usually possible things. This concept in further elucidated by Francois Raffoul: “The impossible would no longer be the opposite of the possible but, on the contrary, would be what “haunts the possible,” what truly “enables” or makes obvious things possible. The impossible, Derrida would claim, is possible, not in the sense that it would become possible, but in a more radical sense in which the impossible, as impossible¸ is possible.” (Raffoul, 2008, p. 273). Derrida, in this book, explores the ways in which some events apparently fall beyond our perception of what is seemingly possible. Such events exceed the ordinary sense of possibility and are hence labelled as impossible. This notion of the impossible is thus intimately linked with Derrida’s idea of the gift as an event. Besides, the factor of surprise is an essential element in his concept of the gift. According to him, a gift is “what comes and, in coming, comes to surprise me, to surprise and to suspend comprehension: the event is first of all that which I do not comprehend and first of all that I do not comprehend…Although the experience of an event…calls for a movement of appropriation…there is no event worthy of its name except insofar as this appropriation falters at some border or frontier.” (Borradori, 2003, p. 90). Derrida’s explanation of the theory of gift, thus, makes it very clear that the event of gift is an economic as it does not fall within the circular nature of the economy. A gift must be essentially free from the cycle of “reciprocity, return, exchange, counter gift, or debt”. (Derrida, 1992, p. 12). If we give a closer look to the idea of a gift, we can easily discern the subtle working of an ordinary economy beneath the external appearance of the gift. Such an understanding will reveal that even the usual gifts that we accept in our day to day lives come with an attached liability and can therefore be problematic. We may take for instance the overview of a birthday present as suggested by John Caputo: “a gift does not belong to the circle of presents…You can never get a gift on your birthday or Christmas.” (Caputo, 1997, p. 162). The present one receives on one’s birthday or on any such special occasion is a surprise only in the sense that we are not aware of what lies concealed within the folds of the wrapping paper. The fact that it will be presented to us is not a surprise at all, because we know we are going to receive it anyways, and in fact we even expect it. The expectation for a gift on one’s birthday is such an obvious feeling that the absence of a present on such a scheduled occasion would rather be a matter of surprise. Similarly an employee receiving his due salary on the pay day too is a preconceived event. The employee works for the employer and in the process accrues credit with him. This debt is paid off by the employer at the end of the pay period when the employee receives his salary as remuneration for his labor. Thus both the present received on one’s birthday and the salary received on one’s pay day share the same structure. A gift therefore is equivalent to an expectation that is fulfilled or a remuneration that is paid on time. Such a preconceived and expected nature of the gifts often robs them off the surprise element that Derrida ascribes to them. ‘Living Currency’ by Pierre Klossowski La Monnaie Vivante is a phenomenal book by Klossowski that combines in-depth economic analysis and photographic illustrations to produce a work that defies all conventions of the existing times. The translated version of the book is entitled the ‘Living Currency’. The book is in the form of a full length discussion on economics that is intermittently combined with a collection of eighty sketches and photographs of ‘Roberte’. The character of Roberte has been portrayed by Denise Morin-Sinclaire who was Klossowski’s wife. The photographs featuring in the book are not related to the textual content of the book in any way. Most of the photographs are marked by sexual and pornographic connotations, while some relate to events from ancient history. In this book, Klossowski argues that just like money is used as a currency in the transactions involving the exchange of goods and commodities, the human body serves as a currency in the case of exchange of emotions, illusions and libidinal intensities. While the modern civilized society strives to subdue such libidinal desires and temptations, Klossowski believes that it is these very elements that form the basis of the other kind of economy he has defined in this book. He brings in the idea of “an industrial era where producers have the means of demanding objects of sensation as payment from consumers. These objects are living beings… This kind of bartering would make producers and consumers into collections of “persons,” supposedly intended for pleasure, emotions, and sensation.” (Klossowski, 1970, p. 21) Such ideas brought forward by the author somehow bring about a total reversal in the conventional laws of exchange that govern our day to day lives. It infuses a drastic change in the way we perceive the role of money as a medium of production and sale of goods and services. But the kind of economy suggested by Klossowski in this book rests entirely on a different principle- that of the emotional forces. He says: “Bodily presence is 11already a commodity, independent of and over and above the commodity itself that such presence contributes to producing. And now, industrial slaves must either establish a strict relationship between their bodily presence and the money it brings in, or replace the function of money, and be money themselves: simultaneously the equivalent of wealth, and wealth itself.” (Klossowski, 1970, p. 32). The author feels that the traffic within the human body is as potent a driving force as any of the market forces operating inside an economic system. So rather than trying to establish the authority of one system over the other, we should try to rule out the possibility of distinction between the two. Contrary to the accepted notion, the human body is simply a collection of disparate impulses and emotions over which the body itself has no control. It is rather these impulses and emotions which control the workings of the human body and over which the human mind has barely any control. In this context, the author argues that one needs to break away from the traditional economic theories which govern the relationship between human and non-human, between object and subject. He suggests his readers to reconsider all such classical theories of economics and rather proposes the idea of “abolishing property ownership over one’s own body and over the body of others”. (Klossowski, 1970, p. 24). “Phantasm” and “simulacrum” are probably the most significant terms used by Klossowski in this essay. As aptly described by Daniel W. Smith in his guide ‘The Translators Preface’: “The former comes from the Greek phantasia (appearance, imagination), and was taken up in a more technical sense in psychoanalytic theory; the latter comes from the Latin simulare (to copy, represent, feign), and during the late Roman empire referred to the statues of the gods that lined the entrance to a city. In Klossowski, the term ‘phantasm’ refers to an obsessional image produced instinctively from the life of the impulses… A ‘simulacrum’, by contrast, is a willed reproduction of a phantasm (in a literary, pictorial, or plastic form) that simulates this invisible agitation of the soul.” (Klossowski, 2005, p. x). The author revolves around the central proposition that increasing industrialization and mechanization have paved the way for some new kinds of perversions and desires in the modern society. According to him, perversion refers to the isolation which results from one’s realization of the thin line of demarcation between constructive instincts and voluptuous desires. This kind of perversion serves to mark the distinction between the human and the mechanical, the functional and the dysfunctional. It however is sufficiently restricted and channelized by the social institutions as a means to direct the modes of production towards certain specific and monitored purposes. The author feels that the industry itself gets involved in the perverse act of treating human actions as mere functional tools that are meant to be concentrated on doing the same thing over and over again. But quite ironically, whenever anything goes against or beyond this fixated functional gesture, it is condemned as something perverse by the industry. The author has stated right in the beginning of the text: “Imputing to the means of industrial production a pernicious effect on affect, i.e., on emotions, means acknowledging that it has considerable moral power, in order to denounce its demoralizing influence. Where does that power come from? It comes from the fact that the mere act of fabricating objects puts their purpose into question: how does the use of useful objects differ from the use of art objects, which are “useless” for any actual subsistence purposes? Nobody would ever confuse a tool with a simulacrum, unless it is as a simulacrum that an object has its necessary use.” (Klossowski, 1970, p. 1). Klossowski is of the view that art is something that cannot be explicitly classified as something that is functional. But as per his opinion, art falls under the class of simulacrum and would probably perish in an ethos that nurtures excess of anything. However it also cannot be denied that art is also a kind of tool, as it helps to create new experiences and serves a compensatory function. The author seeks to explore the dichotomy of use and non-use, functional and dysfunctional, art and industrial processes. He believes that all of these elements can be ascribed both rational and instinctive properties, and that all of these drives overlook any sort of external distinctions imposed on them. Thus human bodies have been labelled as the “living currency” and money has been treated as the connecting link between man’s impulses and instinctive pleasure on one hand, and the universally accepted principles of the institutional or industrial framework on the other. This treatise by Pierre Klossowski, originally written in French, is often tagged as a quasi-economic study and has been translated into many other languages. The text is remarkable for the contribution it makes in the field of history and philosophy. It has received the appreciation of several of its critics and co-authors. Pierre Bal-Blanc, for instance, applauds the text for its role as a connecting link between the theories presented by major literary artists like Bataille, Baudrillard, Foucault and Deleuze. The publication of Klossowski’s Living Currency in the year 1970 was soon followed by similar works written by his successors. For example, Deleuze & Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus was published in 1972 and Lyotard’s Libidinal Economy was published in 1974. Lyotard’s book especially draws its key inspiration from Klossowski. Hence a thorough study of Klossowski’s Living Currency would offer valuable insights into not only the views of the author himself but also the theories proposed by different authors in the field of political economy. Conclusion For many centuries, man has been trying to fathom the quintessence of money. Authors, economists, philosophers and statesmen have expressed their views on money in their respective works. Money has been a source of temptation for people and has lured human beings who are forever engaged in the search of stability. Sometimes money becomes an object of sheer disdain owing to the extent of instability it may bring at times. Man has yet not been able to discern whether money does more good than evil or does more evil than good. Money has the power to make or mar, to create or to destroy. It can foster peace and fraternity amongst people and nations. But it may also create endless disputes and clashes, break harmony and unity, and turn friends into foes. It is capable of deciding the fate of individual persons as well as whole nations. While on one hand, the possession of money brings with it freedom and liberty, the lack of it leads to dependence and slavery. In the olden days man made money. But in today’s world money makes man. It is not only a source of man’s livelihood and sustenance, but also a perennial influence on his manner of living and his fashion of thinking. References Borradori, G. (2003). Philosophy In a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Caputo, J.D. (1997). The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida: Religion without Religion. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Derrida, J. (1994). Given time: I. Counterfeit money (Vol. 1). University of Chicago Press. Klossowski, P. (1997). La Monnaie Vivante (The Living Currency). Paris: Rivages. Klossowski,P. (2005). EPZ, Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle. A&C Black Raffoul, F. (2008). “Derrida and the Ethics of the Im-possible”, Research in Phenomenology 38(2), 370-90 Simmel, G. (2004). The philosophy of money. D. Frisby (Ed.). Routledge. Read More